Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Toothie3/Archive

Evidence submitted by Nableezy
Toothie3 has been an account singularly focused on denigrating Arabs. On March 7th he stopped editing for about a week after opened an ANI thread about him. On March 8 the account Geenahs was registered. Both accounts have since edited Pan-Arabism and its talk page as well as a DRV incvolving a userbox. Both Toothie3 and Geenahs have made similar comments about pan-Arabism being Nazism and racist, but the similarities are shown in more than the content. Neither editor indents their posts, instead using multiple newlines to separate their responses. They also use multiple newlines between their posts and signatures. Compare Geenahs and Toothie3. Both usernames have argued for, with similar language, and reverted to retain certain material in the pan-Arabism article. Both users have also made comments at the DRV. I dont know if this constitutes vote fraud for the CU code, but I think the a CU is merited.  nableezy  - 21:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims. I know you are upset for telling the truth on the racism in Pan Arabism. How dare you Nableezy lower yourself to this kind of obvious lie? As I told you Nableezy before, we won't shut up just because you intimidate us. First you tried to ask admin. to block me because you were supposedly "offended", than you tried with Malik Shabbazzz to block me because I edited another page that Malik happened to be, "accusing" me of "wikihounding,", now this? What's next? This totalitarian type of masking persecution under "wiki rules" won't work! it won't help you sensoring voices against the racism of pan Arabism, I say it again. Nor does it bring honor to your Islam. 1) I am sure that the administrators can differenciate between people and my IP address and others that might or might not agree with my views, needless to defend against a supposed accusation because I might share a view with someone. 2) As far as sources, like every other person I do research, and... there's such a thing called internet... 3) If someone maybe using/supports my argument that I wrote on the talk page, that doesn't make him/she "me." 4) Anyone that sees my talk page can see that I don't have much experience on wikipedia, and I am still evolving, so much for the s.p. idea. 5) As to Nableezy's ridiculuos obsessive "watching over me" when I am going on a break, I will "make sure" to "announce' when I am to be on/off line. Come to think of it speaking of the idea of SP sockpuppetting are you sure you are not that IP Kuwaiti  IP address  address? The difference is that I don't accuse you with a certainty like you claim to "know". though we can all guess that you don't really believe that I use another account
 * Is Nableezy's sockpuppetting? his desperate low type of obsessive-persecution, this 3rd time again

Last not least, be careful when you try to "accuse" on wikipedia someone that you don't like, I am not against "arabs" but against the racist ideology of pan-Arabism and its crimes against humanity. Be careful not to get blocked when you so desperately try to ban and "accuse" (I will say it again, wikipedia is not a totlitarian pan-Arab, pan-Islamic entioty, this is called democracy)! In fact I am against the intolerance of Arabism upon all non-Arabs, or on all no-Arab-enough...

Toothie3 (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other parties
Dont worry toothie we have all been through this I think prior Nableezy even accused Lanternix of being sock. I have also been accused Wrongfully of being a sock by Arab nationalist extremists. this is indication of how desperate and low they will go to supress information they know cannot be refutted and hiding behind wiki rules wont work or help them either, since many of them clearly ignore the rules themselves and are wrongfully abusing them when no need justified.seriously when you are proven innocent consider this complaint a badge of honour, like i do.♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Well done toothie with your work on the sources you've done a better job than I have.♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Nableezy 21:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

–MuZemike 17:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ - wow! Really bizarre case under the hood but yes, confirmed - A l is o n  ❤ 02:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 02:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Nableezy
Same type of edits as the last account with the same pattern in the talk page comments. Multiple new lines used to separate comments and multiple newlines to separate the signature from the comments (see ). Also the same reliance on op-eds or other unreliable sources to make statements of fact on Arabs or pan-Arabism.  nableezy  - 16:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Nableezy 16:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

, looks fairly likely, would appreciate it if a check user could check to see if there is a link. Regards. SpitfireTally-ho! 11:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * - Both editors seem to make use of public access terminals or open proxies, making any technical comparison impossible. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 21:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The behavioral evidence is fairly convincing enough for me to conclude that they are the same. Blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 19:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Nableezy
All of these users exhibit the same pattern in the formatting of their comments. See Trendstay (user's first edit was creating a user page), Tripsi, AmAnisa (user's third edit was creating their user talk page). Each of the users is focused on the same topics as previous Toothie socks, Arabism and Islamism. Near all of each of the users contributions are related to either Islamism or Arabism, consistently using the same low-quality sources as Toothie and other socks, including using the exact same sources, see Trendstay using the same sources as Toothie.  nableezy  - 20:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Nableezy 20:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

--Deskana (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting... NW ( Talk ) 03:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What's interesting is that I evidently trust myself less than actual clerks, since I found myself checking the endorsement much more rigorously than I would normally. --Deskana (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

--Deskana (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Deskana, are the results similar to the last two RFCUs?  nableezy  - 17:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if they're proxies, but one of the IPs could well be a proxy based on what limited testing I did. They're sharing some IPs anyway, so it seems reasonable to conclude they're the same person if there's behavioural evidence involved. --Deskana (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Nableezy
Continuing to make the exact same edits and reverts as past Toothie3 socks on the pan-Arabism page. One user after another is registered to continue making the same edits at the pan-Arabism page. Each of the users in the previous report has stopped editing since the last SPI investigation was opened on April 3rd. The LeeSeem account had not edited since 2/21 and showed up today once Rocalsi was reverted by another editor. All of these edits push the same edits and the same problematic sources and will revert endlessly to keep it in the article. The two editors combined have already made 4 reverts today of the same material.  nableezy  - 01:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
I have added Terminologistic, as the user seems to be interested in the same details as the others already discussed here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by  nableezy  - 01:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 01:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Auntie E. (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅/ Currently available technical and behavioral evidence indicates that the following accounts are definitely or very likely related:
 * Currently available technical and behavioral evidence indicates that it is possible that the following accounts are related to those above. The account(s) edit originate from an internet cafe in a location that overlap some of the above sockpuppets.
 * Currently available technical and behavioral evidence indicates that it is possible that the following accounts are related to those above. The account(s) edit originate from an internet cafe in a location that overlap some of the above sockpuppets.
 * Currently available technical and behavioral evidence indicates that it is possible that the following accounts are related to those above. The account(s) edit originate from an internet cafe in a location that overlap some of the above sockpuppets.
 * Currently available technical and behavioral evidence indicates that it is possible that the following accounts are related to those above. The account(s) edit originate from an internet cafe in a location that overlap some of the above sockpuppets.
 * Currently available technical and behavioral evidence indicates that it is possible that the following accounts are related to those above. The account(s) edit originate from an internet cafe in a location that overlap some of the above sockpuppets.
 * Currently available technical and behavioral evidence indicates that it is possible that the following accounts are related to those above. The account(s) edit originate from an internet cafe in a location that overlap some of the above sockpuppets.
 * Currently available technical and behavioral evidence indicates that it is possible that the following accounts are related to those above. The account(s) edit originate from an internet cafe in a location that overlap some of the above sockpuppets.
 * Currently available technical and behavioral evidence indicates that it is possible that the following accounts are related to those above. The account(s) edit originate from an internet cafe in a location that overlap some of the above sockpuppets.

-- Avi (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged.  E lockid  ( Talk ) 20:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Report date April 19 2010, 17:41 (UTC)
Moved from WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/190.122.171.58.


 * Suspected sockpuppets

Sole edits have been reverting Islamism in favor of the 'bigotry' section, just as recently blocked-for-sockpuppeting Beyruthi and AmAnisa have done almost exclusively. Posted plea for reversion and second reversion ~2 hours after the AmAnisa account was blocked. dm yers t urnbull  ⇒ talk 17:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by  dm yers t urnbull   ⇒ talk


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Should be moved to the Toothie3 SPI page.  nableezy  - 19:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

Requested by  dm yers t urnbull   ⇒ talk 17:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

There are striking similarities between the IP editor and known socks such as User:AmAnisa, for example, the arguments are almost identical in syntax, style, and point:. Accordingly, and should just be dealt with without checkuser. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 04:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Indeed. Two-week block. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 16:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)